United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Stephanie Nicole Crumley filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. She proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis. Plaintiff names as Defendants Sheriff
Mike Moore, Jail Administrator Jason Day, Nurse Jody Woods,
Officer Gene Atwell and Dr. Lee. The original Complaint was
served on Sheriff Moore and Jail Administrator Day. When they
answered, they identified the jail nurse as Nurse Woods and
the arresting officer as Officer Atwell. Service was directed
to these Defendants. Plaintiff added Dr. Lee as a Defendant
in the Amended Complaint filed on March 11, 2019.
case is before the Court for preservice screening under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a
prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must determine whether the
Amended Complaint should be served on Dr. Lee.
to the allegations of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 16),
excessive force was used against Plaintiff when she was
arrested. Plaintiff also alleges that she was denied medical
care while incarcerated. On November 8, 2018, when she was
arrested, Plaintiff asserts that the officers put their knees
on her back and pushed down hard despite her saying
repeatedly that her back was hurt. Plaintiff alleges she was
forced to walk even though she was hurt. Plaintiff states
that "[t]he only concern the jailers had was staples
still in my leg." Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges
that her "back [was] broken and also her leg."
Id. at 5.
arrival at the jail, Plaintiff alleges Nurse Woods removed
her staples, but Plaintiff believes she should have been
referred to an orthopedic doctor. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Lee
from Mediquick and Nurse Woods refused to refer her to
physical therapy. Id. at 6. Plaintiff indicates that
Dr. Lee did x-ray her back but found "no obvious
break." Id. at 8.
maintains: "I walk sideways and have burning pain in my
foot and also in my lower back. My legs go numb."
Id. at 6. She claims she has had to learn how to
walk without a leg or back brace. Plaintiff also mentions
that she passed out in her cell but received no medical help.
Finally, she indicates she has submitted sick call requests
and grievances about her ankle hurting. Id. at 8.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiff states she will need medical treatment to repair
the damage now and for therapy in the future.
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "In evaluating whether a pro
se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a
claim, we hold 'a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Jackson
v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153
(8th Cir. 1993); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004). "[A] pro se plaintiff requires no
special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his
alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court
is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief
can be granted." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation,
under color of law, of a citizen's "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. To state a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the
defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated
a right secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins,487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley,195 F.3d 1007,
1009 (8th Cir. 1999). The deprivation must be intentional;
mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for